Appeal 2006-2997
Application 09/881,911
sale listing." The other independent claims include similar language. The
Specification states (Specification, p. 6, para. 0021) that the term "listing" is
used interchangeably with "item." Thus, all of the claims require
authorization for a particular item, not for plural products or purchases.
Stewart discloses (Stewart, para. 0057) that once a buyer member
becomes registered with a seller member, the buyer member will be
permitted to view and purchase from seller product catalogs and bid on
auction products. Product information is made available to buyers who have
been authorized and are interested in particular products (see Stewart, para.
0081). Also, buyers who have been authorized by the seller can place orders
with the seller, and only authorized buyers can purchase products (see
Stewart, para. 0091). Further, Stewart discloses (Stewart, para. 0091) that
the seller's individual authorization of buyers "eliminat[es] the need for the
seller member to repeatedly requalify a buyer member when each product
order is enforced." In other words, Stewart discloses that authorization is for
multiple purchases and/or multiple products, not for a particular sale listing
(or item), as recited in the claims. Since Stewart explicitly wants to
eliminate having to authorize buyers for each purchase, we find no
suggestion in Stewart to modify the teachings therein to authorize for a
particular sale listing. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13 through 18, and 20 through 35.
Regarding claims 5, 7 through 9, and 12, Friedland, Walker, and
Kumar fail to cure the deficiency in Stewart noted supra. Therefore, the
combinations of Stewart with Friedland, Walker, and Kumar fail to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 5, 7 through 9, and 12.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013